SU: The Emergence of the Welfare State in the US

There has been a profound shift in the way we think about government.  The Conservative view under which our country was founded thought government as an intervening, meddlesome institution, to be tolerated but not encouraged!  This idea stems from the experience the founding fathers had with the English system of government as represented by the King of England.

But ever since the New Deal of F.D. Roosevelt, a concept has evolved that government can be a help to the individual, the community and business.  It is that concept which Conservatives reject at least in some respects.  I refer to this relatively new concept as "the welfare state."  The force of the concept lies in its use of science applied to governmental interaction through the deployment of technocrats. Importantly, nearly all advanced governments make use of these individuals in key administrative positions.

How is the individual helped?

Under the welfare program:

The individual receiving welfare stipend:  This person is placed in a "holding tank," so to speak.  He has no assets, very little money.  The county government usually will grant him a meager amount of money so as to live.  I lived on the welfare stipend for many, many years.  In some counties in the US, there is an additional allotment for a place to stay.

Typically, the program involves the recipient to perform weekly chores on behalf of the county, such as erasing graffiti off the walls, picking up trash, working at a county hospital, e.g., throwing wet sheets just taken from the dryer--an arduous task, and so forth.  It is thought that under this status an individual or family can live in a safe environment.

Food stamps from the federal government are available, generally.  Under welfare, the beneficiary will receive up to $200 of food stamps a month.  He is entitled to health services as needed, recognizing he is unable to pay back.

Since the Clinton reforms of welfare, a recepient must look for work on his own and be enrolled in a training program or attend weekly work-centered seminars.  Should a recepient find a job, there are incentives to motivate the individual to keep it: for instance, not shutting off all welfare money at once.

As you can see, the welfare program is meant to provide the safety net to keep an individual socially functional.  Where it falls far short is in securing business and industry support for re-integrating the individual back into an employment setting.  Clearly, there is no means for such integration as might be achieved through an internship program (that pays or does not pay the welfare recepient) or part-time placement on-the-job, in any job!    If there were a mentor from industry to work with each and every welfare recepient capable of working, we might witness a change of attitude toward the person on welfare, one of industry's wanting to help, just as government is helping to keep the welfare individual functional.  Too often, a person on welfare is regarded as a pariah in the eyes of most community members.

In fact with regard to my case, I wondered whether industry even wanted me to apply for any job, since the initial interview with their representative was obviously just a formality to offer the job openly.  Without a mentor system, industry demonstrates a lack of interest in trying to get the individual re-integrated into the mainstream.  Industry simply enables the recepient to shut the door on his way out of each and every place of business he applies for work.

Be it noted that not all counties provide cash stipends or funds for housing.  I was told on some TV program that one county in California had nearly nobody on its welfare rolls.  The TV presentation of this county's welfare program emphasized the training provided.  Of course, there was no commitment by industry that should a recepient successfully complete the program there would be some advantage he would attain in securing an appropriate job in industry.  That never, ever is hinted at.  Well, I went for a time to this county to live in the hopes that I would secure employment, since the numbers on welfare were heralded as very low.  What I discovered upon living there was that the county offered just food stamps--no cash stipend and no proviso for living accommodations.  I quickly learned why the relief roles were so low:  the county discouraged providing any help to sustain human life for anyone who might otherwise qualify for additional welfare aid.  Persons who might qualify for such were being forced out of the county, as was I!

I uunderstand that some counties will provide cash stipends on the promise from the recepient to pay back the amount received en toto!  If true, that would be a horrendous burden to place on one who has so little--even acknowledging the cash stipends received.

There is an organization (just one?) that attempts to place the individual on welfare in an intern position with some company, in the hopes that he may work into a permanent job: called something like "Platform to Employment."  Certainly, the intern program has been well-developed in the vocational skills area in high schools and  community colleges across the country.  It should be applied to welfare programs. 

Be it also acknowledged that probably half the persons receiving welfare are emotionallly disburbed, such that they are mentally incapable of holding down a job.


Under the unemployment insurance program:


This program offers cash, usually twice or once a month, taking into consideration the former employee's salary of his most recent job.  It is a program reserved for those who have been out of work a short time, certainly no more than a year to three years.  If he finds no work during the time allotted by government to look for something, he usually is forced into a county welfare program, requiring his divesting most of his assets.

The former employee on unemployment insurance must look for a job on his own.  A state unemployment insurance department will attempt to aid in his effort by maintaining lists of  available positions in his area; and the newspapers, local and cross country, are available to him to peruse at a public library.

If he has run out of contacts in his field of work, he will most assuredly lose an important resource and may become disoriented over time.  Does he still remember how to do welding as well as he once did while employed?  By the end of the second year on unemployment, he is bound to be rusty and perhaps out-of-touch with technological and skill upgrades in his field. 

Re-training is necessary option and should be part of the unemployment package of benefits.  If the particular field of endeavor the former employee was in no longer shows promise for future employment, the person receiving unemployment benefits should meet with a counselor or case worker who should be able to map out an educational program to lead  the individual to change careers.  To my knowledge, this is not being done widely.

Of course, if the former employee is older than 50, he may find age discrimination will hamper his chances of seeking another job.  That's the facts of life.

Some adjunct programs available to the indigent and the working poor

child care: child care services, nearly universally available to those women with children on welfare.

senor companion: for seniors whether living at home or in  assisted living housing or in a nursing home, someone is designated a companion to help the senior perform daily routines

migrant and seasonal farm worker program: to help with placement and securing necessary social services

community services: for Indians, for example

legal services for civil matters: available to low-income persons

emergency shelter program: to house the homeless

family planning agencies: such as Family Planning

supportive services for the aging: provides services and financial support to state agencies for the aging

at-risk child care programs: for families on AFDC

Pell grants: enabling students to continue their education, particularly in college and graduate school.  Most of these grants are in the form of student loans, payable once they graduate or discontinue attending higher education institutions.  The loan grants may prove a burden to young adults just starting out in a career, since their financial resources may be meager for some time.

Under these two principal programs--The Conclusion

The welfare state must be a cooperative effort by government and educational institutions and industry, so as to establish the beneficiary of one of these two safety-net programs into business and the greater society.  That is to say, government, education, or business--all three societal groups--must offer a helping hand if the welfare beneficiary is to present himself fit for a new job and for assuming a respected role in society.

In changing careers:

Also a part of the welfare state is a program that fosters an individual's intention to change his career.  Here too, the individual must seek the help from government, education, and industry--all three bodies.  Typically, an employed individual undergoes a "mid-life crisis" around 35-45 years of age.  It commences when an individual asks the question regarding the meaning of life itself (which has become embodied in a popular song) :  "Is that all there is?"  He finds within himself a longing for living life to the fullest, including his search for an occupation that would enable him to express his inner potentials, heretofore lying dormant, through productive enterprises.  He wants to truly be as happy and content with his life as he can live it.  The search for his "true" identity, implying self-fulfillment, oftimes is tangibly located in his avowal to change careers.

I went through a change in career very much as described in the above paragraph at age of 41.  At that time, I read up on the subject in books written by psychologists, and I consulted the works of famous persons whose life-style I wanted to emulate--particularly, the medieval humanists.  I relied upon what interests I had at the time--philosophy, politics, and the study of socities and people, these interests that were demonstrated by my taking graduate courses in them and as teacher, joining community and educational groups where I could develop them further.  At any rate, I took additional courses in business and accounting and computer languages, so that I could change from the teaching career, viz., professor in philosophy to the business career of programmer, while retaining the same interests I pursued since college!     

So, in some sense, namely, with respect to my interests, I was the very same person I had been since my college days, but now I was to pursue these interests in a business environment as computer programmer.  What fun! When I made the switch, there was a sharp decline in my finances, but this was short-lived, because I was to be making more money in business than I had made in education per annum.

How did government, educational institutions and business help me do the switch?  I found the governmental rules deployed in industry were vital to my situation: particularly, that businesses should not age-discriminate; and that they should encourage self-development of the employee whenever he sought to take additional training and education, e.g., taking university courses at night school, whether or not such training had immediate application to the workplace!  I discovered in the universities and community college where I did indeed take courses to prepare me for the business environment, that computer and accounting advisors were of tremendous help as were the instructors I had in programming.  Finally, many particular companies I talked with about the computer field and those I applied to for a job, were most helpful with their suggestions and practical assistance to make it possible for me to change careers.

But must stand out is the passion--the passion I displayed to those I contacted that I really, really wanted to change my career!  They could see it in the steps I was taking and in the dedicated enthusiasm I had for the project.

Who are good candidates for career change?          

A change in careers is probably not going to be sucessful in the lives of many who attempt it.  I've given the topic of who can benefit from undertaking the project some thought over some 30 years since I made the change.

I've come to the opinion that older executives who don't see much further advancement in their particular profession, e.g., are unlikely to be promoted in the company or educational institution, for whom they have been with for many years; and soon-to-be retired law enforcement individuals and military personnel come readily to mind.  In my case, it was the enlightening moment when the chairman of the faculty senate at the college I taught one day commented that we were likely to be seeing the same faculty members for the next twenty years--a thought I was not willing to accept as my fate!  I expected more out of life than that!

In a way, it was that Buddhistic moment of Truth that propelled me to embark on The Way Up and Out!

Meta-Elements of the Welfare State & Evaluation of these three welfare state programs 

The Welfare State, far from being burdensome to the individual who seeks to benefit from it, offers avenues for the individual to sustain himself as he seeks to re-integrate himself--his talents and abilities--into the greater society, providing that all three societal groups participate.  

Nevertheless, these three major programs (and their adjuncts) must be evaluated in light of the purposes of the welfare state.  It will be recalled that the preliminary of this item alluded to Republican opposition to governmental participation, viewed as an interference, in the structuring of society, specifically, in offering to those beneficiaries of welfare, stipends, referred by them oftimes as "doles," in an effort to sustain life and modest social well-being.  I believe, indeed, that Conservative Republicans scorn governmental efforts to lend a helping hand to the poor in need, unless the poor mend their ways.  

For instance, Republican Conservatives point out that most poor don't keep to the family structure of a mother and a father and their offspring.  The poor woman, more frequently than not, has her child out of wedlock and raises her child thusly.  There are other social values of the typical American not shared nor adhered to by the poor.  The poor drink alcohol, which is frowned upon by the Christian right, who don't want governmental money going to support that habit.  Some poor are not religious, to be sure.  On and on, the values and activities of the poor are an anathema to Conservatives.  Accordingly, Conservatives don't want to help the poor who remain intransigent in a value system they don't share!

One can then see why business, a group typically conservative in society, refuses to help the poor through face-to-face relationships.  Concretely, business won't permit the poor as interns in  its companies or won't designate business personnel to become their mentors, i.e., who would sponsor the inclusion of the poor into its realm of activities and affairs.  The poor, in sum, are personna non grata in business environments, generally.

Without business' helping hand, the poor on welfare are to remain in a "holding tank" social status, no matter what governmental help is provided, no matter how much educational courses the poor were to take.

The Meta-elements specifically 
1.  The promise.  Society,  in the US through its welfare state organizing, has indeed offered a safety net to those in need that permits them to live and obtain health care and a modest living standard.  Whether it be the welfare program per se or the unemployment program or the career change program, there's a program for the sustenance of human life for the poor and needy.  For career change, since many are middle-class, the program has little social stigma associated with it.

2.  The acceptance. Many of the poor have availed themselves of the welfare program, many formerly working poor have accepted unemployment while fewer of these have attempted to career change, that program being pursued largely by middle class persons with some money of their own.

It is important to realize the terms of acceptance by the poor in either welfare or unemployment.  The recipient of welfare benefit or unemployment insurance is to be looking for a job on his own.  A person on welfare must do community service and attend relevant job-seeking seminars, such seminars may also be required of persons on unemployment.  His contact with business is self-initiated, there being little support available to him from the business community, as pointed out in the above discussion.

3.  Areas of societal advancement.   Since those on welfare, unemployment, even occasionally, doing career change, are bystanders to societal mainstream activities in their welfare state status, they are not obstructing efforts toward societal gain.  There are occasional demonstrations but these are localized, usually, and short-lived.

Still, because their existence interwoven into the societal fabric--they buy food, use food stamps, go on buses and trains, etc.--necessitates that others in the society recognize their being "amongst them," they become a social "eye-sore."  That is to say, members of the greater society resent those poor and middle-class in a limbo status.

4.  Provisions for breakdown of this uplift system, i.e., the emerging welfare state.  Conservatives have now lumped the needing poor on welfare, the unemployed and some of those in career change with those unemployed who no longer are doing job searching, whether the latter be stay-at-home moms, those returning to school or doing volunteer work.  Thus, the population size of those in bystander status has grown markedly and noticeably.  It has led to many Conservative Republican Congressmen calling for immediate "reforms," i.e., cut-backs in the budgets of programs that sustain a welfare state.

5.  Utopian vision pursued.  No longer is there agreement in the US as to a utopian vision.  Indeed, Mark Levine has written a recent book seemingly declaring any utopian vision null and void within the US politic.  He wants, apparently, no social goals--forget a greening America, pollute all you want American user of fossil fuels; pay no attention to the aspirations of other countries in the world, don't try to see their point of view and to get along with them, e.g., bomb Iran into submission to the US will and command, if necessary!

Evidently, these right-wing Conservatives have gone back to the vision of America as aspired to by the early colonists on American shores.  Commitment to values that sustain human life on the earth be damned, certainly not pursued.  Progress towards a united world, apparently, should be halted.  They are desireous of forests in a condition unfit for habitation--to the US as it once was when there were 13 colonies.